Delhi High Court
Dikar Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 6 July, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.602/2007
% Date of Decision: 06.07.2011
Dikar Singh .... Petitioner
Through Nemo
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. .... Respondents
Through Ms.Latika Choudhary, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers NO
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd January,
2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2030/2005 titled as 'Dikar Singh v. Govt.
of NCT of Delhi & Anr.', whereby the original application of the
petitioner challenging the order dated 16th February, 2004 as well as
30th August, 2004 whereby the appointment of the petitioner as
Chokidar by order dated 11th December, 2003 had been terminated
and his request for grant of age relaxation was declined. The relief
sought by the petitioner for consequential benefit was also declined
in the facts and circumstances.
2. The Tribunal categorically noted that the notice calling for the
application specifically stipulated that candidates ought to have the
age limit of 18-27 years as on 1st September, 2002. Before the
Tribunal, it was not disputed by the petitioner that his date of birth
is 30th June, 1975 and in the circumstances, ex facie he had been
over age on 1st September, 2002. The petitioner had also contended
before the Tribunal that he should have been granted the age
relaxation as has been done in numerous cases, however, before the
Tribunal no particulars of any other candidate were given in whose
case the age relaxation was granted for appointment.
3. It was also noticed that the representation of the petitioner for
age relaxation was considered, however, in view of the availability of
large number of suitable candidates who did not even require age
relaxation, the age relaxation was not granted to the petitioner.
4. The Tribunal has also considered the various precedents relied
on behalf of the parties in extenso.
5. From the order of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the
petitioner approached the Tribunal a number times seeking similar
relief, however, it was declined to him.
6. The matter was taken up on 5th July, 2011, however, no one
appeared on behalf of the petitioner. No adverse order was passed
against the petitioner on that day in the interest of justice and the
matter was allowed to remain on board in the category of 'Regular
Matters'.
7. Today, again no one is present on behalf of the petitioner. In
the circumstances, this Court has no other option but to dismiss the
writ petition in default of appearance of the petitioner and his
counsel. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
July 06, 2011.
vk
